SPLC

Judge John Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana left intact what plaintiff Patrick Esfeller says are the "core values" of his case, including claims that the university's "vague and overbroad" regulations violated the First Amendment.

One student code of conduct regulation he was charged under prohibits "extreme, outrageous or persistent acts, or communications that are intended or reasonably likely to harass, intimidate, harm, or humiliate another."

The judge also allowed Esfeller to pursue claims that the university violated his right to due process. The school accused Esfeller of "committing an act or an attempting to commit an act on campus that would be in violation of city, parish, state or federal law." Esfeller contends that officials failed to give him notice of the specific laws or rules he had allegedly broken, making it impossible for him to defend himself.

Officials with the university's Office of Judicial Affairs opened the case against Esfeller in November 2006 when they began investigating accusations that he was harassing his ex-girlfriend, who also attended the school. They charged him with four counts of non-academic misconduct.

But according to the lawsuit, the investigating authorities failed to interview any of Esfeller's witnesses before proposing sanctions, and Esfeller also claims officials threatened that any attempt to make the judicial proceedings public could result in additional charges. He had met with staffers from The Daily Reveille, the student newspaper, to discuss his alleged mistreatment.

The school opened a second investigation in response to Esfeller's concerns about the fairness of the first inquiry, but the hearing panel convened during the summer when Esfeller was unable to attend because of work. That compromised the result and was a further violation of his due process rights, Esfeller said.

"I felt like the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment due process stuff were the ultimate elements that needed to stick, because I just hope that no one will ever have to go through what I've gone through," Esfeller said.

The judge dismissed several claims in the May 30 ruling, including allegations that the university violated the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act by revealing information about the results of his hearing to his ex-girlfriend, and that it violated the Sixth Amendment by barring Esfeller's attorney from the disciplinary proceedings.

The court dismissed all claims against the university's Board of Supervisors, as well as claims seeking monetary damages from then-Chancellor Sean O'Keefe, because the 11th Amendment bars a state's citizens from suing the state or its agencies for money damages in federal courts.

However, the court allowed Esfeller to continue seeking an injunction against the chancellor's office. If Esfeller succeeds on his remaining claims, he could win attorney fees and an injunction barring school officials from violating his rights.

Esfeller said he is filing a new lawsuit this week in state court in the hope of winning monetary damages.

K.C. White, the associate vice chancellor and dean of students at Louisiana State University, said she was not familiar with the most recent legal developments in the case, but wholeheartedly stood by the university's code of conduct.

The most recent revisions to the code occurred in 2002, and the university has been in the process of revising the document for the last year, just recently passing it on to legal counsel for overview, White said.

"I do not agree in any way shape or form that our code of conduct violates the First Amendment," White said. "I think that's what is most important in any judicial affairs office is the fundamental fairness that is extended to our students."

CORRECTION, July 2: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story's headline misstated Patrick Esfeller's enrollment status.

Also, an earlier version of the article mischaracterized Dean of Students K.C. White's remarks. In a subsequent e-mail to the SPLC, White said her comments did not speak specifically to claims of vagueness or unfairness in the existing or proposed conduct codes.

The SPLC regrets the errors.